Sunday, 6 September 2015

Parliament to debate Satanic Assisted Suicide Bill this Friday.

It is interesting that the Assisted Suicide Bill is supported by The Guardian. The very same newspaper which cries over pictures of dead children on a Turkish beach is prepared to support the killing of  the sick, old, infirm and disabled.

I must declare an interest. I suffer from Parkinson's and have seen my physical condition worsen over the last decade. But in the event of this Bill becoming law, how long would I be allowed to live? How long until the Social Workers whispered in my ears "You won't have much of a life, won't you be better off dead?"

This Bill is the start of a slippery slope.

The Three Tameside Labour MP's have promised to vote against the Bill, but we must not be  complacent,  Keep pestering  your MPs to ensure they realise the depth of feeling on this matter.


David Tyler said...

Thanks very much for your comments - all the more powerful as you are a Parkinsons sufferer. People are too easily reassured that safeguards are in place. Everywhere else, where euthanasia is practiced, the slippery slope is evident. This includes Oregon. If we (as a country) go down this road, we will have a National Death Service - all paid for by the taxpayer.

We won't save refugees by destroying our own country said...

Actually we can’t do what we like with this country. We inherited it from our parents and grandparents and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren, preferably improved and certainly undamaged.

It is one of the heaviest responsibilities we will ever have. We cannot just give it away to complete strangers on an impulse because it makes us feel good about ourselves.

Every one of the posturing notables simpering ‘refugees welcome’ should be asked if he or she will take a refugee family into his or her home for an indefinite period, and pay for their food, medical treatment and education.

You really think these crowds of tough young men chanting ‘Germany!’ in the heart of Budapest are ‘asylum-seekers’ or ‘refugees’?

Refugees don’t confront the police of the countries in which they seek sanctuary. They don’t chant orchestrated slogans or lie across the train tracks.

And why, by the way, do they use the English name for Germany when they chant? In Arabic and Turkish, that country is called ‘Almanya’, in Kurdish something similar. The Germans themselves call it ‘Deutschland’. In Hungarian, it’s ‘Nemetorszag’.

Did someone hope that British and American TV would be there? I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: spontaneous demonstrations take a lot of organising.

Refugees don’t demand or choose their refuge. They ask and they hope. When we become refugees one day (as we may well do), we will discover this.

As to what those angry, confident and forceful young men actually are, I’ll leave you to work it out, as I am too afraid of the Thought Police to use what I think is the correct word.

But it is interesting that this week sees the publication in English of a rather dangerous book, which came out in France just before the Charlie Hebdo murders.

Submission, by Michel Houellebecq, prophesies a Muslim-dominated government in France about seven years from now, ushered into power by the French Tory and Labour parties.

What they want, says one of the cleverer characters in the book, ‘is for France to disappear – to be integrated into a European federation’. This means they’d much rather do a deal with a Muslim party than with the National Front, France’s Ukip equivalent.

If any of this sounds familiar to you, I wouldn’t be surprised. It’s amazing how likely and simple the author makes this Islamic revolution sound.

Can we stop this transformation of all we have and are? I doubt it. To do so would involve the grim-faced determination of Australia, making it plain in every way that our doors are open only to limited numbers of people, chosen by us, enduring the righteous scorn of the supposedly enlightened.

As we lack the survival instinct and the determination necessary, and as so many of our most influential people are set on committing a sentimental national suicide, I suspect we won’t.

To those who condemn reasonable calls for national self-defence as bigotry, hatred and intolerance (which they are not), I make only this request: just don’t pretend you’re doing a good and generous thing, when you’re really cowardly and weak.

Tameside Citizen said...

@David Tyler

Thank you for your kind words. It is appreciated.

Anonymous said...

@We won't save refugees by destroying our own country

A great realistic summing up of the situation facing the UK and Europe, one of the best I have read. I dread to think what our children and grand children will inherit.

As for the question of euthanasia, when you have seen a loved one ravaged by cancer and slowly die then you realise there is a need for it. I would certainly opt for it in a similar situation. I realise many will object to this view but that's my own opinion.

Anonymous said...

Many people if given the option of euthanasia would take it.
In the case of conditions like Alzheimers everyone mentally capable should have the right to pre-choose death if they are later diagnosed and incapable of making a reasoned judgement.

No Knowledge = No Conviction said...

@ We won't save refugees, I agree with your excellent post apart from 'To do so would involve the grim-faced determination of Australia'. It will take a LOT more than that.
People were willing to shed blood in defence of their culture, religion and nation going back centuries to only a few decades ago. We've gone soft, self-indulgent and gutless.
The west is now largely peopled by self obsessed 'individuals' who are either too stupid, selfish or cowardly to believe in anything of worth.